Let’s Talk The Bnp. Options

[charlesr]

I take on board the validity of the need for an extreme view to be audible in our society but I question as to whether the BNP are capable of participating in such a role. I want to see the very real and current problems associated with immigration challenged by a real political party that is fed on more than just what amounts to little more than fanaticism

I could not agree more, although I have to admit, I was originally of the opinion that the BNP under Griffins charge was no bad thing for democracy, but it would appear that Griffins European success has revealed his true political stance, and we are now possibly back in the position of having no legitimate spokesman regarding the detriments of un regulated immigration and positive discrimination.
So the crux of the matter is once again that Democracy as we have it in Britain has failed the decent people of Britain, we are caught between two political extremes, Labour and Conservatives on the one hand and the BNP on the other, there is no political middle ground.
One thing is certain though and that is, that the Labour party with their policies, are responsible for the rise of the BNP, the only question left in my mind is, is it a deliberate attempt to divide and rule?
I have to agree that, the BNP as it is today under Griffins stewardship, can never be part of the solution, only if they reject Griffin and what now appears to be his true political agenda, can they perhaps become a legitimate part of the solution.

[charlesr]

I have just found this article in the New York Times on line, here is a a rather interesting, although maybe controversial point of view from the American president himself.

Now as things stand at the moment in Britain, if a member of the British public were to publicly make this same statement as Obama, they would be open to not only insulting accusations of being a racist, but also to prosecution under the Race and religious hatred laws.
I have simply lost count of how many times I have seen people on forums verbally attacked as racists for making the exact statement that Obama has just made. The fact that they might be telling the truth is irrelevant to people of a bigoted nature or an uneducated mind, the people of Britain are walking on eggshells, they are afraid to speak out regarding immigration, for fear of being classed and prosecuted as racists, this is another friction point between the British public and immigrants. It so obviously antagonistic, you once again have to wonder if this Labour policy is not deliberately created to divide the people of Britain.
Obama has thankfully set the standard here, he has actually made lack of progression in employment, in regard to skin colour and ethnicity a legitimate point of discussion. The people of Britain and America should now thankfully be able to accurately express their views regarding colour and ethnicity regarding unemployment without the stigma of being called a racist and the fear of being prosecuted.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/17/us/polit...tml?_r=1&em

Stop using racism to excuse failure, Obama tells black America.
Thursday night, warning black parents that they must accept their own responsibilities by “putting away the Xbox and putting our kids to bed at a reasonable hour,” and telling black children that growing up poor is no reason to get bad grades.
“No one has written your destiny for you,” he said, directing his remarks to “all the other Barack Obamas out there” who might one day grow up to be president. “Your destiny is in your hands, and don’t you forget that. That’s what we have to teach all of our children! No excuses! No excuses!”
Mr. Obama spoke for 45 minutes to an audience of several thousand people, most of them black, clad in tuxedos and ball gowns, who had gathered in a ballroom of the Hilton New York to celebrate the 100th anniversary of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, the nation’s largest civil rights organization.

[ai21]

I have just found this article in the New York Times on line, here is a a rather interesting, although maybe controversial point of view from the American president himself.

Now as things stand at the moment in Britain, if a member of the British public were to publicly make this same statement as Obama, they would be open to not only insulting accusations of being a racist, but also to prosecution under the Race and religious hatred laws.
I have simply lost count of how many times I have seen people on forums verbally attacked as racists for making the exact statement that Obama has just made. The fact that they might be telling the truth is irrelevant to people of a bigoted nature or an uneducated mind, the people of Britain are walking on eggshells, they are afraid to speak out regarding immigration, for fear of being classed and prosecuted as racists, this is another friction point between the British public and immigrants. It so obviously antagonistic, you once again have to wonder if this Labour policy is not deliberately created to divide the people of Britain.
Obama has thankfully set the standard here, he has actually made lack of progression in employment, in regard to skin colour and ethnicity a legitimate point of discussion. The people of Britain and America should now thankfully be able to accurately express their views regarding colour and ethnicity regarding unemployment without the stigma of being called a racist and the fear of being prosecuted.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/17/us/polit...tml?_r=1&em

I didn't see anything racist in this speech, on the contrary:

“Make no mistake, no mistake: the pain of discrimination is still felt in America,” Mr. Obama said, by African-American women who are paid less for the same work as white men, by Latinos “made to feel unwelcome,” by Muslim Americans “viewed with suspicion” and by “our gay brothers and sisters, still taunted, still attacked, still denied their rights.”

Obama simply divided responsibilities.
it's the minority responsibility to get the best they can out of life,
and the state and majority responsibility to assist coexistence and prevent discrimination.

it is very expected speech, done superbly.
after all, Obam IS THE ROLEMODEL for young people of minorities in the US.


as it come to immigration, and walking on eggshells.
speaking your heart don't make you racist, the way you treat people do.
the US is an immigration state, has been from it's beginning.
in whole of Europe, not Just the UK, we see that the attempts to become immigration friendly have failed significantly. it is not a UK problem, but rather refusal to learn from other's experience because of ideological blindness. it is time to throw this failed dogma, and face reality.


how do you view UKIP?
this party do support to handle things differently (immigration and EU wise for example),
but don't involve racism in their campaign. you don't have to be white-only party to be effective opposition.
unlike BNP, when I look at their policies, they don't seem like a fantasy. they actually mean to implement their policies.
and you don't catch them praising Hitler

[charlesr]

I didn\\\'t see anything racist in this speech, on the contrary:

Neither do I, but the politically correct brigade would be up in arms over this, if it been said by a British person, of course since it was Obama that said it, it will ok.

how do you view UKIP?

I know just about as much about UKIP as I do about the BNP, In discussions I am reverting to the internet to acquire the information I require. I knew very little regarding the BNP at the start of this discussion, so first of all I went straight to the BNP web site to get a better idea of things, I then cast around the interment to get a wider view of them. I will do the same with UKIP before I try to answer your question.

If UKIP are as you indicate then they are a better proposition than the BNP by far, but I don’t know whether they support repatriation or deportation or not and given that Britain has allowed many thousands of criminals entry in to the country, I would like to hear that UKIP would deport all illegal immigrants immediately, and also all legal immigrants who have committed crimes while they have been here. But I will check the UKIP web page and get back to you on that.


This post has been edited by charlesr: Jul 19 2009, 01:25 PM

[rederic]

I didn\\\'t see anything racist in this speech, on the contrary:

Neither do I, but the politically correct brigade would be up in arms over this, if it been said by a British person, of course since it was Obama that said it, it will ok.

how do you view UKIP?

I know just about as much about UKIP as I do about the BNP, In discussions I am reverting to the internet to acquire the information I require. I knew very little regarding the BNP at the start of this discussion, so first of all I went straight to the BNP web site to get a better idea of things, I then cast around the interment to get a wider view of them. I will do the same with UKIP before I try to answer your question.

If UKIP are as you indicate then they are a better proposition than the BNP by far, but I don’t know whether they support repatriation or deportation or not and given that Britain has allowed many thousands of criminals entry in to the country, I would like to hear that UKIP would deport all illegal immigrants immediately, and also all legal immigrants who have committed crimes while they have been here. But I will check the UKIP web page and get back to you on that.

I find your self confessed ignorance of UKIP astounding, especially as you voted for them.

charlesr wrote:

I will continue to vote UKIP for the foreseeable future, and hope they continue their success, i am now starting to believe that UKIP might be the turning point and are our best hope of getting out of Europe.

[charlesr]

I voted Labour before and not once did I read their manifesto or their policies, I voted Labour simply to get rid of the Tories.
Now I want to be out of Europe, so I voted United Kingdom Independence Party, their name told me all I needed to know at that point. I cannot discuss the finer points of UKIP here, because I don’t know them, hence it seems common sense to me to read up on them first, just like I did with the BNP.

I would have thought that only the paranoid would see anything mysterious or sinister in that.

[charlesr]

ai21 I have just read the UKIP immigration policy and I have to say that it suits me just fine, I would go in to detail, but this is the BNP thread, and not the UKIP thread, but I am genuinely pleased with it all, in fact I am so pleased with it that I will be joining UKIP, and helping in every way I can in the future.

I also read their Euro Campaign policies for the 2009 elections, once again it really does seem to be the right way forward, there are 1 or 2 section that seem a bit vague, leaving room for interpretation or perhaps more to the point misinterpretation, but generally speaking from what I have read so far I would say that although I voted partially blindly, I am still more than happy that I voted UKIP.

[rederic]

The British National Party will amend its constitution so its rules on membership do not discriminate on the grounds of race or religion, a court has been told.

The Equality and Human Rights Commission issued County Court proceedings against the far-right party on August 24 after voicing concerns its membership criteria were restrictive to those within certain ethnic groups.

Robin Allen QC, counsel for the Commission, said party leader Nick Griffin had agreed to present party members with a revised constitution at its general meeting next month and that the party had agreed not to accept any new members until the new constitution was in place.

In an order issued at the Central London County Court, the BNP agreed to use "all reasonable endeavours" to revise its constitution so it did not discriminate on what are termed "protected characteristics" in clause four of the Equality Bill.

These include race, gender and religious belief.

John Wadham, of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, said: "We are pleased the party has conceded this case and agreed to all of the Commission requirements. Political parties, like any other organisation, are obliged to respect the law and not discriminate against people.

"It is unfortunate the BNP spent several months before conceding and dealing properly with our legal requirements. We will be monitoring the BNP's compliance with this court order on membership, and its other legal obligations, including to its constituents."

Chris Roberts, the party's eastern regional spokesman, said it was too early to say how the proposed rule change would affect its membership.

He said: "I cannot speculate as to who will join our party when our constitution changes. I just believe its another obstacle thrown into our way by the Lib-Lab-Con elite that now we are taking votes from them they are trying to put us out of business."

The court heard Mr Griffin would be given 10 days to submit a signed undertaking confirming the proposed changes. The case was adjourned until January 28.

[Jason Chapman]

so come on, who saw question time last night. The subject of the BNP has allways been one I have avoided talking about on BUKF because it gets so heated.

Nick Griffin has launched a complaint against the BBC concerning the treatment he recieved. Come on Nicky boy, what did you expect chocolate and flowers. Every audience member was gunning for him as well as the other members of the panel including David Dimbleby. The man expected to be treated fairly, everyone except for Nick, knew he was going to recieve a verbal pasting before he even set foot In that studio.
Added to that most of it was oing on about dribble anyway, who gives a damn of we have been here since the last Ice age.

[biggles]

I think he can only gain votes from i. The BBC done him a favour that is my opinion.
Every one is talking about it now some people have never heard of him until now.

[rederic]

I would have thought that anyone who saw it would conclude that Griffin was an idiot. He said he used to be a "Holocaust Denier" but couldn't explain why.

[Rach227]

He needs he's head sorting, he contradicted himsen on soooo many levels and yet he complains? it's his own damn fault!

[i am fire,fire,fire,fire]

I still think its Ironic how Fascist the Anti-Fascists are.

[orphadeus]

People who oppose the BNP are generally going about it in an appalling way that is counter productive. Nick Griffin's closest political allies are the ones who seek to ban him and the media and politicians who work themselves into apoplexy about him for example appearing on Question Time. Imagine the media coverage if the leader of the Green Party, which is twice as big as the BNP, was appearing. We don't even know the Green Party leaders name. Fascism breeds fascism and trying to ban freedom of speech is fascism which breeds the BNP. The Question Time stitch up against Griffin will have offended many people who loath him who believe in fair play. The stitch up against him is probably an extra 100 000 votes or more to him. If there had been no stitch up and normal topics were discussed, it would have exposed him.
Regarding immigration, I'm in favour of multi ethnic multi culturalism, and there is a problem with the amount of people in the UK in comparison to its size, particularly in England which has 993 people per square mile. OK, Bangladesh has over double that - but look at the problem they have with flooding having cut the trees down and built on flood plane. We're doing that. The failure of people to recognise overcrowding and seperate it from racism is also breeding the BNP.
With regard to cencorship - which breeds the BNP, I haven't been on the forum for a long time having seen a Nazi barred for expressing his political view. I was about to post a reply against his view when if I remember correctly I saw the thread was closed but certainly it appeared he'd been barred, so it was goodbye from me.

Its only beacause of the stupidity of many of the BNP's opponenents that we keep discussing the BNP.

[rederic]

People who oppose the BNP are generally going about it in an appalling way that is counter productive. Nick Griffin's closest political allies are the ones who seek to ban him and the media and politicians who work themselves into apoplexy about him for example appearing on Question Time. Imagine the media coverage if the leader of the Green Party, which is twice as big as the BNP, was appearing. We don't even know the Green Party leaders name. Fascism breeds fascism and trying to ban freedom of speech is fascism which breeds the BNP. The Question Time stitch up against Griffin will have offended many people who loath him who believe in fair play. The stitch up against him is probably an extra 100 000 votes or more to him. If there had been no stitch up and normal topics were discussed, it would have exposed him.
Regarding immigration, I'm in favour of multi ethnic multi culturalism, and there is a problem with the amount of people in the UK in comparison to its size, particularly in England which has 993 people per square mile. OK, Bangladesh has over double that - but look at the problem they have with flooding having cut the trees down and built on flood plane. We're doing that. The failure of people to recognise overcrowding and seperate it from racism is also breeding the BNP.
With regard to cencorship - which breeds the BNP, I haven't been on the forum for a long time having seen a Nazi barred for expressing his political view. I was about to post a reply against his view when if I remember correctly I saw the thread was closed but certainly it appeared he'd been barred, so it was goodbye from me.

Its only beacause of the stupidity of many of the BNP's opponenents that we keep discussing the BNP.

Let's get this straight. You think it's stupid to oppose Racism & Fascism?